Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-disclosure of documents

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2010

LAU KWAI KIU v. BIAN XINTIAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU KWAI KIU v. BIAN XINTIAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP344/2009

The court found that the defendants and their solicitors failed to produce an unfavourable Lands Department Reply and provided no credible explanation; that failure was an unreasonable omission by the solicitors that caused the plaintiff to incur wasted costs; accordingly it was just to make a wasted costs order against T.C. Lau & Co. and their handling solicitor Mr Gabriel H.T. Leung-Jackson-Lipkin and to award indemnity costs to the plaintiff, including costs of the application on an indemnity basis.
27 Nov 2006

昆明預應力制管廠 v. TRUE STAND INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

昆明預應力制管廠 v. TRUE STAND INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT67/2005

The application to set aside the ex parte order and judgment was dismissed because none of the respondent's grounds fell within the limited statutory grounds in section 40E: the name variance did not defeat the arbitration agreement as the tribunal was the authorised body intended by the parties; non-possession or non-disclosure of documents did not render the respondent unable to present its case; public policy and fraud exceptions were not engaged; and merits issues (liability and quantum) cannot be re-opened on enforcement. Consequently the Mainland award stands and is enforceable against…
22 Feb 1995

BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS

Citation

BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9302/1993

Cumulative special features — obtaining and maintaining an ex parte Mareva injunction based on miscalculated restraint, concealment of material facts and source of funds, repeated defaults and delays, wilful non-compliance with discovery orders and suppression or misleading of evidence — constituted an abuse of process and an affront to the court; those facts justified departing from ordinary party-and-party costs and ordering costs on an indemnity basis against all plaintiffs; Susan Johnson's affirmations excluded as inadmissible hearsay when used to establish plaintiffs' motives.
13 Feb 1995

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS

Citation

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6861/1993

On the balance of probabilities the 1st Plaintiff failed to make proper and full discovery of relevant documents ordered by the court, including documents in its possession or power, and provided no adequate explanation; this deliberate or culpable non-disclosure created a real and substantial risk that a fair trial was not possible, therefore the 1st Plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the 1st Defendant's summons; the other plaintiffs' actions are dismissed on their withdrawal.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAU KWAI KIU v. BIAN XINTIAN AND ANOTHER

昆明預應力制管廠 v. TRUE STAND INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS